Can your logic explain this? (regarding my Christian God) (2519 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.79 on 129 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Fat Tony (View user info) at 2007-07-24 12:47:59 EDT
Dead Sea Scrolls. Carbon dating puts these scrolls about 1500 years before the time of Jesus. Why is this important? The Romans invented the torture of crucifiction, nobody else came up with it. How do the dead sea scrolls explain how Jesus would die? 1500 years before the torture was invented. Being crucified was not possible in 1500BC
Israel. Lots of nations were destroyed. Has any nation ever come back? Only one, Israel. The Bible clearly talks about Israel becoming a nation, then being destroyed, then returning as a nation. It's never happened before and the Bible said it would happen.
Sons of Abraham. God promised Abraham that he would have a son and would have many descendants. Abe had a little bastard son with his slave and had one with his wife. The son from his wife, the true heir to his promise is the Jews, the other bastard son is the Arab nations. No big deal, right. Both groups agree that they are Abraham's descendants. The Bible says that the two sides will always be at war with one another. This is going back way before the time of Jesus. The Arab nation and Israel have always been fighting and will always be fighting. The Bible tells us this will happen and everyone just likes to ignore this one.
Destruction of the Temple. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm this, the Bible tells us that the temple will be destroyed and others will take over the property. Temple was destroyed and can't be rebuilt because of the Dome.
Look how tiny a nation Israel is, yet the Bible said that the sons of Abraham would be as numerous as the stars. There are millions of Jews. Take any other country that is the double the size of Israel, do they have as many people? The Bible tells us that the chosen people would prosper. Are Jews rich?
The Arab nations are also sons of Abraham, constantly at war with their brother Israel. Just like the Bible predicted.
The Mark of The Beast. Thirty years ago would it be possible to track the purchases and sales of every human on earth? It wasn't even possible 15 years ago. The very thought of keeping tabs or records of every person was something to laugh at. The Bible tells us that without accepting the mark of the antichrist, a person will not be able to buy, sell or work. Is that possible today? Look up Digital Angel and see if it's possible. One world government and one world identification seemed impossible and unnecessary. Yet with the constant threat of terror, it seems like it's the only way to go. A plastic ID can be tampered with or duplicated. A thumb print isn't super accurate. What's next?
It seems really easy to say there is no God because of all the bad stuff that happens. If a good person dies or gets sick people are very quick to say that God doesn't exist because if he was so kind and loving he wouldn't let this happen. How can God allow this? Why does God let this go on?
I have asked those questions thousands of times.
Is it fair that a good people die while horrible people live and prosper? Why did God allow all those innocent people to die in the holocaust and in 911? What about the wars and all the children? How can God allow all those people to die for no reason?
Is it fair that an innocent man should die a horrible death to pay your debt? Is it fair that you could share an immeasurable inheritance if you just thank and trust one person?
No, it's not fair. Technically it's wrong that a person like myself can share a prince's inheritance when the time is right. It's wrong that all of the horrible things I've done are forgotten and my file is destroyed. It's wrong. When I come before the court to be punished for my crimes, my attorney is the one and only son of the judge. His son, my buddy got rid of all the proof that could condemn me. It's wrong.
If you give God a chance, if you put all of your sarcasm and doubt aside. If you just try him for a little while without putting a time on it, without putting a limit on him without .... just try him. He'll show and prove to you that he's real. What's it going to cost you to try?
User Reviews
Submitted by Amberatvp (user info) at 2008-05-27 04:16:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
i hav bluddy tried 2 be christian
i was a full-on christian from when i was born till i was 7 nd a half
u wanna kno y i stopped??
becuz, even tho i was good, all of this shit started happening, my life got so fucked, i prayed and all that shit, i believed pplz like u, but no, no justice was done, no help was given, none of the assholes died, nothing fucking happened
thatz y i dont believe god is good
, but god has done nothing 2 prove he is good
i believe he exists, but i dont thnk he 'created the world' and i dont think he has powers or anything like that
nd i dont believe in all those bullshit stories like ;'David and Goliath' and Moses and all that bull
but i kno the devil or 'Satan' exists and is evil, nd i believe in ghosts 2
so seriously, dont tel us these stories, cuz none of us buy it, ok?
watever dude
Submitted by Bohme (user info) at 2007-07-29 14:15:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Dead Sea scrolls explain how Jesus would die? Can I get a link here or something.
Sources to all those other claims would be nice too.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2007-07-29 02:50:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
seriously you have to be fucking stupd to believe in god
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-28 00:07:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
IRT indoninja:
I was really, REALLY close to not responding. We've hijacked the shit out of this thread, but I dig it.
"In all fairness the pledge says God, not the God the teacher of Abraham and the father of our lord and savior jesus christ. Although I do see the point in removing it from the pledge, I just don't agree."
As an atheist, it doesn't matter if it says Jesus, Elephatus, or the vague "God". They're putting words in my mouth, making it a bit awkward to support my country without supporting God. It's important to note that "under God" was not originally part of the Pledge. It was lobbied in by (you guessed it) conservative christians in the 50s because we were afraid of the godless commy bastards.
George H. Bush, during his presidency, stated that atheists are not "citizens" or "patriots" because "[t]his is one nation under God".
Again, I have to explain this to my children someday.
"Nipping the "problem" in the bud also nips the basis for a lot of people doing the right thing when it comes to thievery, merder, etc."
If the underground elephants demanded a generous national health care plan for the poor, and congress passed it for fear of being gored in an underground afterlife, it would truly be a great thing for America to finally take care of her poor. But it would not be honest. What if the someone interperates the elephant trunk-whistling as a call for homosexuals to be exempt from this system? Whether we're talking about Jebus or elephants, we are swinging from the nuts of an intellectually dishonest, immune-to-criticism juggernaut. That is a very dangerous thing.
Losing a generous national health care system is a small price to pay for having shaken off a dishonest tyrant. Again, no lie is so beautiful that it becomes true.
"I don't think insulting or attacking religion is the way to stop the fringe. I think repeatedly putting their religion up for examination in light of current science, beliefs and standards is the way to."
I argue with theists all the time. My examination can only be taken as an insult and attack; that's how religion works. Questioning and criticizing one's faith, if done seriously, is a very high crime in religious circles.
Calling miracles "magic" is insulting. Calling prayer "telepathy with the all-knowing" is insulting. Calling faith "absurd superstition" is insulting. Of course, they're all true- and all these chides are so simple that even a child could present them. That's what makes them so powerful. But how rude! How dare they insult the Lord and the faithful!
"Look how many people believe in evolution now compared to 50 years ago?"
According to a 2001 Gallup poll, 12% of the American public believe that evolution occured without God's guidance, 37% believe that evolution occured with God's guidance, and a full 45% (!!!!) believe God created humans in their present form. These numbers are abysmal. Nearly HALF of the people of the wealthiest country in the world reject evolution! Who the hell would propagate such nonsense? Hmmmm...
If the American people have such little faith in science, where is 45% disagreement with quantum physics or swarm theory? Theists think science is just swell until it interferes with faith, then science is just pompous asshat-ery. "I'm so insulted!" is the only card they can play, and it's trump in every suit. The debate generally stops there because, as a culture, we're so sensitive to respecting beliefs.
"How many catholics do you know that use condoms, do you really think it is less than 50 years ago?"
Yes, but that's more because Europe has abandoned Catholicism while poorer, less educated countries in latin america, africa, and asia have taken their place. Many of these people don't have condoms available, believe they are sinful, or can't afford the luxury.
"I agree with you on judging religious practices on the same basis of any non-religious practice, I just don't think you should throw the baby out witht he bathwater."
The "baby" is a mixed bag of murder and salvation, as well as a habitual liar. Good riddance.
"How do you raise a child without indoctinating them? What values are you going to teach them? Being brought up with religion isn't a black and white thing."
Sure there's some gray area, but let's not pretend that's where we currently are.
You can start by not baptizing children or giving them first communion. Stop paying for Sunday school and making couples promise to raise their children in your church before you wed them. Stop bringing children to churches all together. Convert the cry-rooms to storage to show your sensitivity to the moldable mind of a child. If your religion is strong enough, they'll join when they turn 18.
"I am not religious but when I have kids I might go to church to help give them a moral compass."
Working from the other direction, if they did NOT go to church, they would have less of a moral compass, right? Wrong.
Christians make up 75% of the US population and 75% of the prison population. Non-believers make up 10% of the US population and 0.2% of the prison population. It turns out that the heathens get caught doing illegal things FAR less than the faithful. The margin is staggering. This is obviously incompatible with your church = moral compass, in fact it's evidence for the opposite.
Which brings me to a new point: there's a whole army of people out there who are only prevented from doing criminal acts because a Big Brother version of God is watching and judging their every move. Some people need this fear/obedience relationship to keep from acting on immoral thoughts, but let's not mistake fear/obedience for faith/morality.
True morality is to work toward the minimization of suffering in the world. I've already given two(or more?) examples of how faith manifests itself as working in the OPPOSITE direction (condoms, HPV). I'm certain there are many more. Faith is not virtuous, it is poisonous.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-27 15:45:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:18:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You must not have read Elephantus 12:53-61 very carefully. The Elephants (capital "E") can disappear at will. If you don't read the whole of Elephantus, you have no reason to judge. Their overall message is one of goodness and ivory."
Nevermind, I for one welcome our elephant overlords.
"Maybe I'm misreading you, but you might be completely missing my point. I'm saying NOONE can disprove ANYONE'S superstitions, provided they are vague/evasive enough. "God is coming tomorrow!" can be disproved the minute midnight of the next day rolls around, but "God will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end" is far more difficult because they never say when or how.
You cannot disprove my faith in elephants, but if you leave it alone and allow it to influence, say, the Pledge of Alleigence: "One Nation, under Elephant, with liberty, justice, and ivory for all"... you've lost your mind. "In God We Trust" is on every coin in my right pocket, and I am an atheist. How do I reconcile this to my children?"
In all fairness the pledge says God, not the God the teacher of Abraham and the father of our lord and savior jesus christ. Although I do see the point in removing it from the pledge, I just don't agree.
"The problem isn't that the followers of Elephant have misinterperated their holy book of ivory, it's that the book of ivory DEMANDS for their faith to take over their lives, so they are helpless to separate their beliefs from their influence on the world. Therefore, we must nip the problem in the bud."
Nipping the "problem" in the bud also nips the basis for a lot of people doing the right thing when it comes to thievery, merder, etc.
"How do you feel about Muslim extremist groups getting atomic weapons? 9/11 was a great example of a couple loose nuts causing billions of dollar of damage and killing thousands of people. Imagine anthrax in the water supply, or bombing out the supports at a sports stadium. I think it's gotten to the point where so few people can hurt so many without any warning, that it's our responsibility to go after the root cause preemptively. Even when done reactively, nothing really changes. Have the Catholics started doling out condoms in Africa? Did the religious right give up their fight against evolution or the HPV vaccine? Hell no, but a big part of that is the public's refusal to criticize these ridiculous beliefs. Of course, I'm not asking for arrests of peaceful religious people, but I do think that the concept of faith as a virtue should be discarded. I think that giving them undue respect because of they are people of faith has to stop. And lastly, I think respect for their religious practices has to be judged on the same basis of any non-religious practice. If I told my wife to NEVER talk to a man that wasn't me, I'm an asshole regardless of my religion. If I raise my children to be catholic, jewish, muslim, baptist, etc... it's no different from raising them republican or democrat. Childhood indoctrination of ANY stripe is an awful thing to impose upon your own children. Those who indoctrinate their children (and the religions that ask it of them) should be called out. This is a shorter list than I could write. I'll spare you the rest in the hopes that you will draw your own parallels."
I don't think insulting or attacking religion is the way to stop the fringe. I think repeatedly putting their religion up for examination in light of current science, beliefs and standards is the way to. Look how many people believe in evolution now compared to 50 years ago? Religion does change, catholisism today looks a lot different than 200 years ago. How many catholics do you know that use condoms, do you really think it is less than 50 years ago?
I agree with you on judging religious practices on the same basis of any non-religious practice, I just don't think you should throw the baby out witht he bathwater.
How do you raise a child without indoctinating them? What values are you going to teach them? Being brought up with religion isn't a black and white thing. Nobody is 100% just a religion, and every religion has different aspects that can be stressed to children. I am not religious but when I have kids I might go to church to help give them a moral compass.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:18:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-27 09:50:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Well the live underground parts you could prove (eventually), since you can search underground."
You must not have read Elephantus 12:53-61 very carefully. The Elephants (capital "E") can disappear at will. If you don't read the whole of Elephantus, you have no reason to judge. Their overall message is one of goodness and ivory.
"It all comes down to faith. I agree if you can't disprove it then you should leave it alone."
Maybe I'm misreading you, but you might be completely missing my point. I'm saying NOONE can disprove ANYONE'S superstitions, provided they are vague/evasive enough. "God is coming tomorrow!" can be disproved the minute midnight of the next day rolls around, but "God will come in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end" is far more difficult because they never say when or how.
You cannot disprove my faith in elephants, but if you leave it alone and allow it to influence, say, the Pledge of Alleigence: "One Nation, under Elephant, with liberty, justice, and ivory for all"... you've lost your mind. "In God We Trust" is on every coin in my right pocket, and I am an atheist. How do I reconcile this to my children?
The problem isn't that the followers of Elephant have misinterperated their holy book of ivory, it's that the book of ivory DEMANDS for their faith to take over their lives, so they are helpless to separate their beliefs from their influence on the world. Therefore, we must nip the problem in the bud.
"As far as public discourse religion does belong in the sense that it represents the beliefs of lots of people. It should be confronted when it has adverse effects (islamic extremism, catholics and condom policy, abortion bombings, extreme mormon polygamists, etc)"
How do you feel about Muslim extremist groups getting atomic weapons? 9/11 was a great example of a couple loose nuts causing billions of dollar of damage and killing thousands of people. Imagine anthrax in the water supply, or bombing out the supports at a sports stadium. I think it's gotten to the point where so few people can hurt so many without any warning, that it's our responsibility to go after the root cause preemptively. Even when done reactively, nothing really changes. Have the Catholics started doling out condoms in Africa? Did the religious right give up their fight against evolution or the HPV vaccine? Hell no, but a big part of that is the public's refusal to criticize these ridiculous beliefs.
Of course, I'm not asking for arrests of peaceful religious people, but I do think that the concept of faith as a virtue should be discarded. I think that giving them undue respect because of they are people of faith has to stop. And lastly, I think respect for their religious practices has to be judged on the same basis of any non-religious practice. If I told my wife to NEVER talk to a man that wasn't me, I'm an asshole regardless of my religion. If I raise my children to be catholic, jewish, muslim, baptist, etc... it's no different from raising them republican or democrat. Childhood indoctrination of ANY stripe is an awful thing to impose upon your own children. Those who indoctrinate their children (and the religions that ask it of them) should be called out. This is a shorter list than I could write. I'll spare you the rest in the hopes that you will draw your own parallels.
"Anyway this conversation has gone on far too long over a bad post."
I'm a ballhair away from agreeing with you.
"God bless you for your sinful ways."
lol
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-27 09:50:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-27 02:38:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Parallel argument time: I believe in magical... green... elephants... that live underground. They are the direct descendants of Dumbo, and will come again on Judgement day to do a jig. This jig will throw the Earth into the Sun.
YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEAVE MY BELIEFS ALONE?
Burden
of
proof
Your certainties about the world must be constrained by evidence. If they are not, you have no place in public discourse.
------------------------
Well the live underground parts you could prove (eventually), since you can search underground. But I get your point. By this argument the spaghetti monster is just as plausible as God (I think I am repeating this point). It all comes down to faith.
I agree if you can't disprove it then you should leave it alone. The opposite is also true. I don't think people should try and force their beliefs on others since they lack proof.
As far as public discourse religion does belong in the sense that it represents the beliefs of lots of people. It should be confronted when it has adverse effects (islamic extremism, catholics and condom policy, abortion bombings, extreme mormon polygamists, etc) and leaders of those groups who want to improve it should be given a platform.
Anyway this conversation has gone on far too long over a bad post.
God bless you for your sinful ways.
I kid I kid.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-27 02:38:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
IRT Indoninja:
"Once again you are imagining you know god's will. Maybe he wants people to trust faith, if there was clear proof there would be no faith.
Same as above. Maybe he wanted jesus to learn, maybe he wanted his teachings to evolve through the course of Jesus's life (his central message was always the same, the only big difference is how much emphasis to place in the old testament)."
Maybe. Or maybe the book is bullshit.
"And where in your faults with the bible does it prove that this is wrong? I am not trying to prove god to you. I am just saying you can't disprove him. This whole argument stems from you failing to grasp that you can't disprove something not based on science and logic with science and logic. It simply won't work. "
Parallel argument time: I believe in magical... green... elephants... that live underground. They are the direct descendants of Dumbo, and will come again on Judgement day to do a jig. This jig will throw the Earth into the Sun.
YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEAVE MY BELIEFS ALONE?
Burden
of
proof
Your certainties about the world must be constrained by evidence. If they are not, you have no place in public discourse.
"Twisted? That twisted version also contributes much more to charities than people who don't follow it. That twisted version is responsible for more reformed prisoners than any other rehibilitation program to date. That twisted version is responsible for more people giving up substance abuse. by all means fight faults you see with things like birth control but you can't ignore all the positives things religion does."
Again, the burden of proof is on the faithful. They can give to charity, they can reform felons, they can do whatever righteous deeds they want to, but the faith that propels them to do both good and bad commits the "sin" of certainty with poor evidence. It's dishonest because it refuses to accept scrutiny... but then religion HATES scrutiny because it cannot stand up to it.
Imagine a judge making his decisions based on poor evidence and applied steep sentences to anyone who dared question him... but this same judge runs a charity for the blind and donates more to the hospital than anyone in the county because his mom always liked that hospital. It may not be easy to apply "good" or "bad" to such a man, but surely "dishonest", "closed-minded", and "crazy" apply.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-07-26 23:31:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Yes, logic can explain that your first sentence on carbon dating is entirely inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Date_and_contents
"According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC-61 AD."
Dumb. Ass.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-07-26 18:22:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Personally, I do not agree with the modern religions anyway. Catholiscism WAS the one true religion, a few thousand years ago. However, since then the bible has been edited by the church for use as a method to control the general population, example: the middle ages in Europe. So, how much of what we are reading is what god really intended for us to know? How much is just plain BS? what points are stressed that should not be? What is missing? Reading the bible now is like finding a 10 page letter with 3 pages missing and all mixed up.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:45:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Fat people are already gassy.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:38:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
arguing about religion is fucking pointless.
gasssing obese people on the other hand...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:29:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
IRT "Worm"
"God's omnipotence has to be called into question if something as trivial as human error is allowed to get between his message and his people."
Once again you are imagining you know god's will. Maybe he wants people to trust faith, if there was clear proof there would be no faith.
"Again, you fall into the gray area between divine truth and human folly. If he knew what was going on, we should listen to what he says. If he doesn't, we have no reason to take him as God's messenger. Again, you have to question God's omnipotence if this is a stumbling block to conveying his message."
Same as above. Maybe he wanted jesus to learn, maybe he wanted his teachings to evolve through the course of Jesus's life (his central message was always the same, the only big difference is how much emphasis to place in the old testament).
"No lie is so beautiful that it becomes true."
What does this have to do with no matter what your religious beliefs are being able to appreciate the teachings of jesus with respect to your fellow man?
"No, but it is strong evidence that THIS version of God is not all he's cracked up to be.
If you want to be ambiguous about God, be my guest. The problem is that Christianity indentifies a VERY specific version of God, and poking holes in their story is child's play. How specific do they get?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Very specific."
And where in your faults with the bible does it prove that this is wrong?
"If God wanted to, he could provide extraordinarily strong evidence for his existence. Resurrect George Washington, let us travel backwards in time, or make country music not suck. Sure there's an outside chance that there is some other force pulling these off, but your certainty must reflect the strength of your evidence. Anything else is dishonest."
If you are going to accept the possibility of a divine all powerful being you have to accept.
"You're right in that you can't disprove God. However, that's more of a deceptive debate tactic than an admission of failure because we're talking about a superstitious figure. Don't believe me? I believe in unicorns. Disprove them. Of course, that's ridiculous. We understand the natural world quite well and noone has any convincing evidence of unicorns. Yet my belief in unicorns doesn't have you heading to Ireland to search for dropping or fossils. What a waste of time. What we're dealing with is "burden of proof". Because there is no compelling evidence of an omniscient being (or a unicorn), it is the believer's burden to prove his existence rather than the non-believer's to disprove it."
I am not trying to prove god to you. I am just saying you can't disprove him. If I said you have to believe, then yes the burden of proof would be on me, but unless people get in my way, I don't care what they believe.
This whole argument stems from you failing to grasp that you can't disprove something not based on science and logic with science and logic. It simply won't work. And yes according to that litmus test unicorns are just as realistic as god and the flying spaghetti monster.
"I would leave my criticisms with actions and practices, but I'm not left with a choice when it comes to people using religion to ridiculous ends.
The Catholic Church actively prevents condoms from being sent ....that begins with poking holes in their twisted versions of God and morality."
Twisted? That twisted version also contributes much more to charities than people who don't follow it. That twisted version is responsible for more reformed prisoners than any other rehibilitation program to date. That twisted version is responsible for more people giving up substance abuse. by all means fight faults you see with things like birth control but you can't ignore all the positives things religion does.
Submitted by Darth_Famine (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:22:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are a moron for beliving the rambling myths propogated by fools thousands of years ago.
(You are also still a fat asshole)
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-26 14:55:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Actually I can (although I don't). Why can't a book be partially correct? why can't someone take an overlying theme away from a book even if they don't believe in all the tiny details?"
God's omnipotence has to be called into question if something as trivial as human error is allowed to get between his message and his people.
"Biblical scholars (and they could be wrong, I don't claim to be one or to have researched everything they said) have put together a number of timelines describing when each section of the bible took place. Jesus very well may have contradicted himself. He was a growing learning person who had the same temptations that you or I do. He wasn't born knowing all of God's plans."
Again, you fall into the gray area between divine truth and human folly. If he knew what was going on, we should listen to what he says. If he doesn't, we have no reason to take him as God's messenger. Again, you have to question God's omnipotence if this is a stumbling block to conveying his message.
"As I said I am not a christian but a dude whose whole philosophy boils down to love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek is a pretty good figure for a religion (even if his followers aren't the best at imitating him)."
No lie is so beautiful that it becomes true.
"Glaring problems with a book written by man about God doesn't prove glaring problems about God."
No, but it is strong evidence that THIS version of God is not all he's cracked up to be.
If you want to be ambiguous about God, be my guest. The problem is that Christianity indentifies a VERY specific version of God, and poking holes in their story is child's play. How specific do they get?
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Very specific.
"Let em repeat, I am not trying to prove god, and I think the argument that the bible proves god doesn't work, but the opposite doesn't work either. I am not saying not to use logic in everyday life, or to decide what is right and wrong, I am just saying it can't be used to disprove God. "
If God wanted to, he could provide extraordinarily strong evidence for his existence. Resurrect George Washington, let us travel backwards in time, or make country music not suck. Sure there's an outside chance that there is some other force pulling these off, but your certainty must reflect the strength of your evidence. Anything else is dishonest.
You're right in that you can't disprove God. However, that's more of a deceptive debate tactic than an admission of failure because we're talking about a superstitious figure. Don't believe me? I believe in unicorns. Disprove them.
Of course, that's ridiculous. We understand the natural world quite well and noone has any convincing evidence of unicorns. Yet my belief in unicorns doesn't have you heading to Ireland to search for dropping or fossils. What a waste of time.
What we're dealing with is "burden of proof". Because there is no compelling evidence of an omniscient being (or a unicorn), it is the believer's burden to prove his existence rather than the non-believer's to disprove it.
"Use logic to critisize actions or practices, but it doesn't work with the existance of God."
I would leave my criticisms with actions and practices, but I'm not left with a choice when it comes to people using religion to ridiculous ends.
The Catholic Church actively prevents condoms from being sent to Africa because they believe that a man ejaculating inside of a woman is an opportunity for life. Nevermind the fact that conception never occurs, their religious beliefs pull off a deadly 1-2 punch. (1) it leads them to the WRONG real world decision based on bad superstition and (2) it insulates them from criticism. Imagine if they actively distributed AIDS in Africa. In actively preventing condoms from getting to Africa, they have the same effect.
Did you hear about Focus on the Family's opposition to the HPV vaccine? Here, we literally have a vaccination against cancer, and a christian conservative organization wants to prevent it from being a requirement for young girls. They're willing to trade lives lost to cervical cancer in the hopes that the THREAT of cancer prevents young women from having sex. It really is that bad. ( http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/31/MNG2LFGJFT1.DTL )
In the end, ridiculous superstitions have a strong impact on the course of this country and this world. To allow these morons to prevent a simple AIDS prevention method from making its way to Africa or a (preemptive) cure for cancer for our young women is absolutely appalling. It's time to stop giving the faithful undue respect for their superstitions, and that begins with poking holes in their twisted versions of God and morality.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 12:18:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Either it's well-translated enough to represent God's word or it's mistranslated enough to be an ordinary book. Pick one and run with it. You can't hit for both teams here."
Actually I can (although I don't). Why can't a book be partially correct? why can't someone take an overlying theme away from a book even if they don't believe in all the tiny details?
"How do you know that this Romans quote came after the Matthew quote? Regardless, if Jesus wasn't sure about what he was saying, he probably should've just kept his mouth shut instead of confusing his followers for millenia to come. Jesus has either contradicted himself, or will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Take your pick"
Biblical scholars (and they could be wrong, I don't claim to be one or to have researched everything they said) have put together a number of timelines describing when each section of the bible took place. Jesus very well may have contradicted himself. He was a growing learning person who had the same temptations that you or I do. He wasn't born knowing all of God's plans. As far as keeping his mouth shut his message (although not always observed by his followers) was far more peaceful than any other of the Abrahamic figures. As I said I am not a christian but a dude whose whole philosophy boils down to love thy neighbor and turn the other cheek is a pretty good figure for a religion (even if his followers aren't the best at imitating him).
"The sad fact is that the bible is really only as "Godly" as modern knowledge allows it to be, and I don't need to read it all (although, believe me, I've read and heard plenty) to point out glaring problems. My literacy is enough to do the trick."
Glaring problems with a book written by man about God doesn't prove glaring problems about God. If i wrote a book about the theory of relativity and fucked it up and contradicted myself would that mean Einstein's work is a sham? Even if I were to accept that you could argue logically about something that defies logic (God) finding fault with the bible doesn't equal finding fault with god. Let em repeat, I am not trying to prove god, and I thiink the argument that the bible proves god doesn't work, but the opposite doesn't work either.
"This is where your apologetics get in the way of discourse. With this statement, you can defend all sorts of lunacy- in fact, some of the most heinous acts in history were performed with divine glee under this invincible shroud. Female circumcision, honor-killings, rape, polygamy... the list goes on. A slew of virgins if I fly a loaded jet into a skyscraper? Sign me up! Logic can't stop me, because God's will is a greater force. "
I am not saying not to use logic in everyday life, or to decide what is right and wrong, I am just saying it can't be used to disprove God. I realize that with this statement the flying spaghetti monster is just as possible as God the father of the dude on the cross (which I believe). Use logic to critisize actions or practices, but it doesn't work with the existance of God.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
IRT: indoninja
"Once again it was written by man and copied and translated thousands of times. it is pretty easy to see how common laws were slipped in as God's law."
Either it's well-translated enough to represent God's word or it's mistranslated enough to be an ordinary book. Pick one and run with it. You can't hit for both teams here.
"Did you ever really read the bible or are you cherry picking verses?"
This is how debate works. The assumption is that the Bible is (indirectly, at least) the word of God. I pick out sets of passages that no righteous, all-powerful God would present.
"If you keep reading he goes on to say that "Thou shall not murder" is not enough but that you can't have hatred in your heart. he does the same with adultery (5:21-24). What he is saying is that the laws are there, they are importnat, but what is most important is the spirit of the laws."
That's really heartwarming. So, instead of just not actually commiting murder, Jesus wants us to not WANT to commit murder. What a revolutionary moralist.
"He confirms this with romans 7:6 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
How do you know that this Romans quote came after the Matthew quote? Regardless, if Jesus wasn't sure about what he was saying, he probably should've just kept his mouth shut instead of confusing his followers for millenia to come.
Jesus has either contradicted himself, or will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Take your pick.
"Jesus teachings did not pop out in one big speech. He wasn't born perfect. God spoke to him and as he lived what he taught changed as he grew closer to God."
All this does is opens up the possibility that it was God contradicting himself instead of Jesus.
"As he taught he focused more on the spirit of the law not the letter and it culminated with him saying the old law wasn't important. he couldn't come right out and say "that old law, yeah it is mostly BS". he had to get followers and slowly share the truth witht hem."
Wow, I think you just called Jesus deceptive.
"If you take the time to read all of it and not pick out parts to support your argument it is pretty clear that christ's teachings supercedes the old testament."
There was a time when the bible was to be taken 100% literally, and the masses were not allowed to be literate. This way, noone could point out the flaws of the bible. Of course, all it took was a bit of studying to find out how porous it was. Now, in an age where much of the civilized world can read, we're supposed to glean "the jist" of it out of abhorrent stories of abuse, misuse, and contradiction. What happened to literalism?
Can you imagine Christians in the middle ages having the kinds of conversations we have now? Of COURSE the OT is valid. Of COURSE Jesus meant what he said. What the hell do you mean 'take it figuratively'?
The sad fact is that the bible is really only as "Godly" as modern knowledge allows it to be, and I don't need to read it all (although, believe me, I've read and heard plenty) to point out glaring problems. My literacy is enough to do the trick.
"What it boils down to is that you have no way of knowing what an all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous god's plan would be."
We agree on something.
"Now I am not arguing the bible is his instrument, or that it proves God."
Could've fooled me.
"I am just saying that you can't argue logically against faith in an all powerful god, because an all powerful god defies logic."
This is where your apologetics get in the way of discourse. With this statement, you can defend all sorts of lunacy- in fact, some of the most heinous acts in history were performed with divine glee under this invincible shroud. Female circumcision, honor-killings, rape, polygamy... the list goes on. A slew of virgins if I fly a loaded jet into a skyscraper? Sign me up! Logic can't stop me, because God's will is a greater force.
If we are not free to use logic to criticize religious beliefs, we will be forever subjected to the lunatics who perform crimes for God. Less than two years ago, Christians in Kansas tried to CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE to allow for creationism! ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10038768/ ). Read the article twice if you have to. That ridiculous crap happened in 2005, not 1200.
The sad fact is that God could've been convincing enough where logic would make his case tenable, but he didn't. All that we have left is faith, and the only time anyone ever accepts anything on faith is when they can't accept it by any reasonable means.
To pretend that the ignorance of, or even the insult of, evidence is a virtue is ridiculous. Believe whatever crazy bullshit you want- I don't care if you believe that monkies created Jesus on a banana tree. Keep it away from my children, my laws, public influence, and my foreign affairs, and we won't have any problems.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-07-26 10:58:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I fuck god in the ear and when he cries out for mercy I rape him eight times harder.
Submitted by RabiedRooster (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:34:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I fuck god in his eye socket
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:28:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
With all due respect to you and your beleifs, I started to read the bible, and beleive it, and become very interested in god; even to the point of beleif about 2 years ago. It was during that time I was deployed to a war zone. I was not praying for miracles, I was just praying for my entire unit to come home alive. Well needless to say I saw, and participated in things I would rather not have, and when the dust settled we lost 3 guys. God did not deleiver on his end of the bargain.
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:15:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you just try him for a little while without putting a time on it, without putting a limit on him without .... just try him. He'll show and prove to you that he's real. What's it going to cost you to try?
___________
Self-respect. I can't bring myself to believe in a fairy tale, and I refuse to pretend I do.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 08:39:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"How does one mistranslate the blurb on divorce or the one on stoning one's wife? It is very difficult to lose entire ideas in translation. If God's the jist of God's point wasn't going to come across clearly, he wouldn't have made the effort. How wrong can the translators get while retaining their work's authenticity as God's (imperfect) word?"
Once again it was written by man and copied and translated thousands of times. it is pretty easy to see how common laws were slipped in as God's law.
"Oh really?
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaksone of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. FOr I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
In short: mixing the OT and NT is not a crime. In fact, Jesus demands it."
Did you ever really read the bible or are you cherry picking verses? If you keep reading he goes on to say that "Thou shall not murder" is not enough but that you can't have hatred in your heart. he does the same with adultery (5:21-24). What he is saying is that the laws are there, they are importnat, but what is most important is the spirit of the laws. He confirms this with romans 7:6 "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." Jesus teachings did not pop out in one big speech. He wasn't born perfect. God spoke to him and as he lived what he taught changed as he grew closer to God. As he taught he focused more on the spirit of the law not the letter and it culminated with him saying the old law wasn't important. he couldn't come right out and say "that old law, yeah it is mostly BS". he had to get followers and slowly share the truth witht hem. If you take the time to read all of it and not pick out parts to support your argument it is pretty clear that christ's teachings supercedes the old testament.
"If an all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous god wanted to give us one book for our salvation, he would've done a much better job than the genocidal, contradictory, immoral, and scientifically wrong Bible. My argument works just fine."
What it boils down to is that you have no way of knowing what an all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous god's plan would be. Now I am not arguing the bible is his instrument, or that it proves God. I am just saying that you can't argue logically against faith in an all powerful god, because an all powerful god defies logic.
Submitted by TheLightOfSpeed (user info) at 2007-07-26 06:25:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What's it going to cost you to try?
------------------------------------
Time. And time is money.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:19:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:03:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I have a philosophical question concerning god. I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.
First, god is described as a being that is all powerful, morally perfect, and wholly good. It is on this premise that I am basing the following situation.
A baby deer in the forest miles from mankind is grazing and eating, doing whatever it is that baby deer do. A thunderstorm shows up and lightning strikes a tree, which falls on the baby deer and pins his legs... He is now stuck and in a great deal of pain and slowly starves to death. Would that not be considered needless suffering? If so why would god allow the needless suffering of a being without sin if he is all powerful, morally perfect, and wholly good? If he allows it to happen, wouldn't that make one of those three things impossible?
_________________
Freedom of choice... What, would you rather have a God that doesn't support great things like democracy?!? YOU MUST BE A TERRORIST.
Submitted by iambetteratit (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:03:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I have a philosophical question concerning god. I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.
First, god is described as a being that is all powerful, morally perfect, and wholly good. It is on this premise that I am basing the following situation.
A baby deer in the forest miles from mankind is grazing and eating, doing whatever it is that baby deer do. A thunderstorm shows up and lightning strikes a tree, which falls on the baby deer and pins his legs... He is now stuck and in a great deal of pain and slowly starves to death. Would that not be considered needless suffering? If so why would god allow the needless suffering of a being without sin if he is all powerful, morally perfect, and wholly good? If he allows it to happen, wouldn't that make one of those three things impossible?
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In respone to indoninja:
"Christianity at least as most people practice it is, or is ideally based on the life and teachings of Jesus, not every single verse in the bible. The bible just happens to be the biggest source fo jesus teachings. Common sense would tel you not to use it as a guide since it contradicts itself."
Common sense tells us a lot of things that contradict the Bible. There was a time that all Christians were fundamentalists. Several of these beliefs were proven wrong as science and/or secular morality became advanced enough to refute them. Slavery, wife-killing, genocide of non-believing communities, Pi estimations, 4-legged insects... all of these are wrong.
~
"The middle ground does work if you don't believe that the bible was written directly by god, even if you do believe that it was still translated by man."
How does one mistranslate the blurb on divorce or the one on stoning one's wife? It is very difficult to lose entire ideas in translation. If God's the jist of God's point wasn't going to come across clearly, he wouldn't have made the effort. How wrong can the translators get while retaining their work's authenticity as God's (imperfect) word?
~
"Nevermind you ignored the part about mixing old and new testament verses. After Jesus the whole relationship with God changed, and anything he said would take prescedance."
Oh really?
In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus says:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaksone of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. FOr I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
In short: mixing the OT and NT is not a crime. In fact, Jesus demands it.
~
"I am not christian, however your argument that christianity must be fake because you found problems with the bible doesn't work."
If an all-powerful, all-knowing, righteous god wanted to give us one book for our salvation, he would've done a much better job than the genocidal, contradictory, immoral, and scientifically wrong Bible. My argument works just fine.
Submitted by UnderDog (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Amen!
Submitted by DaBeast (user info) at 2007-07-25 21:24:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If I predict that the person that wrote this is a religious nut, does that make me gawd? Puhleeze. Let's put it this way: was Enoch taken to heaven and returned unharmed or was he - as has been suggested by the weirdo contingent - really the first documented alien abductee? Both theories have their proponents (and if you're honest, you'll note that there are more people backing the abductee theory) but you'll notice that the Book of Enoch is NOT part of the revised work of King James. It was thrown to the side by the conclave (along with other books) in the 1100's. It was part of the original. So, since you take the entirety of the "bible" as fact instead of a cheap rip-off of other, OLDER myth structures, then Enoch must also be - by your reckoning - true. Interesting.
Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy? The Easter Bunny? WAIT! I KNOW! The Easter Bunny was a Roman soldier in bunny ears and he nailed your icon to that wood! IT'S THE EASTER BUNNY'S FAULT! LET'S GET HIM!!!!!!!
People like you are why abortion - and swallowing - is a popular pasttime. Take your heads outta your collective asses and pick up a 7th grade science textbook to find out how the world really works.
Whackjobs.
Submitted by cshape (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:48:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"The Bible tells us that the chosen people would prosper. Are Jews rich?"
HOLY SHIT maybe the bible IS true!!
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:41:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Like CBS News, this was not thoroughly fact checked.
The Dead Sea Scrolls date from a couple hundred AD, taintstain. How's that for logic, eh? Something written after a guy's death correctly depicts the legend of how he died?
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:33:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly is. Jesus told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the ancient fathers generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed, an etherial gas; but still matter."
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:15:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:13:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Whether it's stoning your wife, holding slaves, killing your kids for dishonoring you, or killing people for getting a divorce, the bible is a horrid source for morality. It ranks among the most confusing and contradictory texts ever printed. My nieghbors basing their morality on such a work is truly terrifying.
This middle groud crap just doesn't work, because it operates under the premise that modern humans are capable of looking at a verse (of the Word of God) and deciphering how literally to take it. God says kill your kids? Take it symbolically. Jesus says love your neighbor? Oh, take that one literally.
-------------
Christianity at least as most people practice it is, or is ideally based on the life and teachings of Jesus, not every single verse in the bible. The bible just happens to be the biggest source fo jesus teachings. Common sense would tel you not to use it as a guide since it contradicts itself.
The middle ground does work if you don't believe that the bible was written directly by god, even if you do believe that it was still translated by man.
Nevermind you ignored the part about mixing old and new testament verses. After Jesus the whole relationship with God changed, and anything he said would take prescedance.
I am not christian, however your argument that christianity must be fake because you found problems witht he bible doesn't work.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:45:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
HUH? What??
You lost me.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:38:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I wrote:
When Jesus said this, divorce was punishable by (you guessed it!) death.
I meant:
When Jesus said this, ADULTERY was punishable by (you guessed it!) death.
Whoops!
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 16:13:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"You are incredably ignorant of the bible and how it is understood by christians."
I come from a christian family on both sides, and attended private christian school for thirteen consecutive years. Believe me, having the fortitude to reject Christianity took a lot of homework.
"First off man wrote the bible, so "god's word" may not be accurate, it isn't a big stretch to see people writng traditions of the time into god's word."
The authors of the Bible were just a handful of the hundreds of thousands of writers who claim to be inspired by God (including modern authors). Bible-writers or not, all of these people were (1) marred by their human imperfections and (2) allegedly inspired by God.
If you consider yourself a Christian, there must be SOMETHING more godly about the Bible than the others. Moderate chistians of all stripes seem to believe that (1)the bible to be extraordinarily inspired by God, but (2) still ordinary enough to be cherrypicked from.
God's chosen authors, it seems, got some things wrong. Good thing we have modern christians around to point out the follies of men who were extraordinarily inspired by God.
In all his omniscience, God was unable to channel his divine word well enough through humans to last a couple millenia.
"Second Jesus came much more recently than anything int he old testament (where your quote from stoning came from) so his teachings would take prescedence."
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9, NIV).
When Jesus said this, divorce was punishable by (you guessed it!) death. The "morality" that I draw from this is that if my wife goes nuts and turns into a total bitch, Jesus gives me two choices:
(1) Deal with it for the rest of my life
(2) Die
Gee, thanks Jesus. Then again, should I expect any better from a man whose byline is "Love me or go to Hell"?
"Thou shalt not kill" doesn't make exceptions for divorcees... unless you listen to Jesus.
~*~*~*~*~*
Whether it's stoning your wife, holding slaves, killing your kids for dishonoring you, or killing people for getting a divorce, the bible is a horrid source for morality. It ranks among the most confusing and contradictory texts ever printed. My nieghbors basing their morality on such a work is truly terrifying.
This middle groud crap just doesn't work, because it operates under the premise that modern humans are capable of looking at a verse (of the Word of God) and deciphering how literally to take it. God says kill your kids? Take it symbolically. Jesus says love your neighbor? Oh, take that one literally.
Go Fundamentalist or go home.
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2007-07-25 09:33:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-24 15:06:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-07-24 14:56:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i think you misunderstand me completely..
he says the bible predicted the creation of israel,
i'm saying zionist read the bible and created israel.
-----------------------
and I am saying that you are a fucking retard if you think millions of jews fled to israel because of the bible.
I don't think the modern creation of israel is proof the bible is real, but I can promise you it had no influence on jews moving there.
___________________________________________
WELL, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FLOOD TO CHURCHES ON SUNDAY CAUSE OF THE BIBLE, WHY NOT ISRAEL?!?!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-25 08:42:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:11:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CHR15 (user info) at 2007-07-24 13:25:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Even though I choose to believe that the Bible is embelished and is not the exact word of God (how can it be?) I also belive it has many important messages, messages that even atheists have built most of their morals on.
~*~*~*~*
No.
Jesus says turn the other cheek. God says stone your wife on her father's doorstep if you find her to not be a virgin on your wedding day. They're both biblical, so "building our morals" on the bible is crap. We take what we know about the current world- about what is wrong and right- and apply it to our own moral code.
Your secular moral code (stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, killing is wrong, be kind to others. etc) exists outside of the bible and is applied to the bible so that you can cherry pick what you like out of god's divine word. If God didn't think it was worth your time, he wouldn't have said it. It smacks of egoism to think yourself a believer, but put your own judgement above that of God.
--------------------------------
You are incredably ignorant of the bible and how it is understood by christians. There is adifference betweent he old testament and the new. I am not a christian but anyone with rudimentary understanding of the religion should be able to see your argument is shit. First off man wrote the bible, so "god's word" may not be accurate, it isn't a big stretch to see people writng traditions of the time into god's word. Second Jesus came much more recently than anything int he old testament (where your quote from stoning came from) so his teachings would take prescedence.
Submitted by Respek (user info) at 2007-07-25 08:40:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Here's an idea, lets force our beliefs on each other! Because that ALWAYS works.
this post is an example of how far an idiot will go to prove he's an idiot.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-25 08:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 04:39:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Israel: Israel coming back was a product of its own religious fervor (google "Zionism"), and worldwide sympathy for the Jews after the Holocaust. Given the local circumstances of its inception, let's not pretend Israel would still exist without the astronomical amount of foreign aid it receives from the good old U.S. of A.
American readers: Israel accounts for 1/3 of your country's foreign aid. Some simple math shows that a (very wealthy) country the size of New Jersey is getting more of our handouts than at least one of the following (impoverished) CONTINENTS: Africa, South America, and Asia. Your funds paid for enough military might for Israel to defeat Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria simultaneously in six days. Yeeeeeep. All that money funneled into oppressing arabs. Don't act too surprised that all the men who attacked our country pray five times a day facing east.
Israel has (1) a terrible human rights record, (2) no consitution (read: no freedoms in writing), and (3) law enforcement/military that is IMMUNE to the country's justice system for anything they do with a uniform on.
Those are all evidence of a country headed in the wrong direction (old Iraq, N. Korea, etc...). Do you still want to pretend that Israel is the home of God's chosen people?
-----------------------
Israel is more a product of hundreds of years of anti-semetism and pogroms than religious fevour. if they fealt could have lived comfortably and safely in Europe they would have stayed.
During the 1948 Arab Israeli war the US wasn't giving any military aid to Israel. during the 6 day war they recieved more support from france and the UK than America. After the 6 day war when Russia cut ties with Israel was when the US first started funding Israel, as was US policy at the time.
Israel only has black marks on its human rights record when its situation is looked at in a vacuum. There is no other nation in the world that has or would put up with constant attacks like the Israeli's does and still respond with such restraint. Every single olive branch they have extended from self rule, to bulldozing their own people's homes to releasing prisoners has only been used to attack them indiscriminately. It interesting you point out the funding that Israel has received but make no mention of the billions of dollars in aid given to the Palestinians who have done nothing with it but rip each other off and buy rockets to lob at Israel.
israel doesn't have a copnstitution in name only. They have the "basic laws of Israel" which guarantee rights of citizens, and I might add the rights given to muslims exceed the rights given to jews, they are not forced to join the military. Can you point me to the British constitution? Oh that is right there isn't one, they are goverened judicial precedents, individual laws, and numerous other sources much like Israel. Does that mean they have no rights? As far as uniformed services being immune from prosecution I suggest you stop getting your info about Israel from neo-nazi websites.
I don't attach any biblical signifigance to Israel or think they are the chosen people, but they are a far cry from north korea and the most open democracy in the middle east, and were it not for nuts lobbing bombs at their cafes and shopping malls it would be #1 on my list of places to go.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-25 08:09:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What's it going to cost you to try?
-----------
My own sense of self respect, now fuck off and die land-whale.
Submitted by CHR15 (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:30:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CHR15 (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:33:24 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, my mistake.
I have to go now but I want to say that I believe 100% in God, but certainly not in the traditional sense.
To anyone that hasn't, try reading some Conversations With God, or Deepak Chopra or for the really high people Lobsang Rampa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You blast me for "cherry picking what I like" and then do it to me (see above).
My secular moral code? You know nothing about me, how can you possibly know what my morals are or what they are based on, especially as you have interpreted me saying the Bible has SOME important messages as me outing myself as a believer in the Bible and the word of God. I reiterate, the Bible has some important messages and even athiests have built most of their morals on those messages. That doesn't mean that they had to come from the Bible dumbshit, just that there are messages in the Bible important for everyone.
In short STFU you fucking moron and don't get involved in discussions above your level of intellect.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-07-24 14:16:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Science, in essence, takes the infinitely miniscule amount of knowledge we have and builds it up through speculation to "explain" unknowns like the begining and end of the world. It's the same thing people have been doing for years; only instead of getting Odin or Zeus, you get the Big Bang or the Big Collapse, neither of which necessarilly have any more credence than (and are considerably less amusing than) the theory of the universe being shot out the nose of a giant space goat. It's certainly never going to be able to explain life or what happens when you die -- not in our lifetimes at least. As such, I don't see any reason why you should take science's word over that of religion. One speaks to fact (facts we often don't have), and the other speaks of truth.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Science may be questions without answers, but religion is answers without question.
Prove the scientific community wrong and you win a noble prize. Criticize religious beliefs and you will never see public office.
Science is based on intellectualy honesty. Religion thrives best among the illiterate and impoverished.
Science advances at a rapid pace. Religion has had little more than cosmetic changes since the invention of the wheelbarrow.
Science is fact, but let's not pretend religion is truth.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:11:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CHR15 (user info) at 2007-07-24 13:25:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Even though I choose to believe that the Bible is embelished and is not the exact word of God (how can it be?) I also belive it has many important messages, messages that even atheists have built most of their morals on.
~*~*~*~*
No.
Jesus says turn the other cheek. God says stone your wife on her father's doorstep if you find her to not be a virgin on your wedding day. They're both biblical, so "building our morals" on the bible is crap. We take what we know about the current world- about what is wrong and right- and apply it to our own moral code.
Your secular moral code (stealing is wrong, raping is wrong, killing is wrong, be kind to others. etc) exists outside of the bible and is applied to the bible so that you can cherry pick what you like out of god's divine word. If God didn't think it was worth your time, he wouldn't have said it. It smacks of egoism to think yourself a believer, but put your own judgement above that of God.
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:04:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FatTony (user info) at 2007-07-24 13:24:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Bible said the world was round long before science even thought it was round.
Earth revolving aroound the sun? Written in the Bible long before any science could prove it.
Atmosphere, rain, evaperoration, written in the Bible long before any egghead could even think such a thing.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Are you really printing this crap? Like the bible IS science?
The bible estimates Pi at 3. The egyptians and babylonians had better estimations well before the bible was penned.
The bible says the world is 7500 years old. It is 4.5 billion years old; off by a factor of more than half a billion.
The bible says rainbows did not exist before the great flood. This, of course, is bullshit.
The bible claims 4-legged insects. They've never existed.
The bible claims eagles carry their young on their wings. This is false.
The bible makes several references to the earth being stationary- even immovable (Joshua 10:13, 1 Chron 16:30, etc). Bullshit.
The bible claims that gold and silver rust. They do not.
The bible talks about bizzare creatures: dragons, unicorns, satyrs, and cockatrice.
Either this is the divine word of God, or it is not.
If it is, God is a retard. If it isn't, Christianity is bullshit.
Submitted by PhillipTheGreat (user info) at 2007-07-25 05:02:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by Worm (user info) at 2007-07-25 04:39:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dead Sea Scrolls: I want a source for your dating. Wikipedia places them between 21 BC-61 AD. Obviously, this makes your "they predicted Jesus" bullshit. I'm guessing you heard it from a preacher.
Israel: Israel coming back was a product of its own religious fervor (google "Zionism"), and worldwide sympathy for the Jews after the Holocaust. Given the local circumstances of its inception, let's not pretend Israel would still exist without the astronomical amount of foreign aid it receives from the good old U.S. of A.
American readers: Israel accounts for 1/3 of your country's foreign aid. Some simple math shows that a (very wealthy) country the size of New Jersey is getting more of our handouts than at least one of the following (impoverished) CONTINENTS: Africa, South America, and Asia. Your funds paid for enough military might for Israel to defeat Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria simultaneously in six days. Yeeeeeep. All that money funneled into oppressing arabs. Don't act too surprised that all the men who attacked our country pray five times a day facing east.
Israel has (1) a terrible human rights record, (2) no consitution (read: no freedoms in writing), and (3) law enforcement/military that is IMMUNE to the country's justice system for anything they do with a uniform on.
Those are all evidence of a country headed in the wrong direction (old Iraq, N. Korea, etc...). Do you still want to pretend that Israel is the home of God's chosen people?
Destruction of the Temple: A religious place of worship was destroyed and replaced by a rival religion's place of worship. That makes it one of several thousand. Southern Spain is now very Christian, but was ruled by Muslims for 600 years. All those pretty cathedrals down there? Former mosques. Let's not bend over backwards to tie a commonplace event to bizzare bronze age mythologies.
You're an atheist to all sorts of Gods: Thor, Shiva, Zeus, Venus... they're all absolutely ridiculous to you. I'd like to see you justify your exception. God is a figment of your imagination.
Submitted by Progr3ss (user info) at 2007-07-25 04:38:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
A guy I know told me that God allowed the holocaust and 9/11 becaue we killed his son.
I told him he was a douche.
Just be nice to each other people. It's really simple.
I love you guys.
Submitted by czwij (user info) at 2007-07-25 02:55:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
as an opinion a good one.
i cant help but like ya tony.
Submitted by Chroniclysm (user info) at 2007-07-25 01:27:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Atrocities are always done in the name of "god"
Submitted by Dervish (user info) at 2007-07-24 22:37:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I just went out and bought The Monster Squad on DVD today.
I'd never seen it before.
It was AWESOME. Have a +2 for that.
Submitted by Saeki (user info) at 2007-07-24 21:51:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
John Titor is real! Posting on an obscure time-traveling forum is a surefire way to alert people to future doom!
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2007-07-24 21:40:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(1)
"Dead Sea Scrolls. Carbon dating puts these scrolls about 1500 years before the time of Jesus. Why is this important? The Romans invented the torture of crucifiction, nobody else came up with it. How do the dead sea scrolls explain how Jesus would die? 1500 years before the torture was invented. Being crucified was not possible in 1500BC."
-------
I find it interesting that Christian use carbon dating to prove how old the Dead Sea Scrolls are, and yet when one tries to use it to prove evolution, proponents of ID say it is not a reliable method.
(2)
"Israel. Lots of nations were destroyed. Has any nation ever come back? Only one, Israel. The Bible clearly talks about Israel becoming a nation, then being destroyed, then returning as a nation. It's never happened before and the Bible said it would happen."
-------
So I assume we are ignoring every country to ever be taken over by an empire, including the Third Reich and the USSR? Poland wasn't Poland for a spell, and the same holds true for countless other nations. Mind you, the only reason Israel even exists is because the powers that be needed a place to put the Jews after WWII.
(3)
"Look how tiny a nation Israel is, yet the Bible said that the sons of Abraham would be as numerous as the stars. There are millions of Jews. Take any other country that is the double the size of Israel, do they have as many people? The Bible tells us that the chosen people would prosper. Are Jews rich?"
-------
My whole point for this is that you are contradicting yourself. The above sentences talk about the success of the Jews as Gods "chosen people," and yet the entire post is about your "Chistian God." You also use New Testament evidence to support yourself throughout the post, and yet Jews don't actually beleive in the New Testament.
The rest of your post is just blather. God exists because the Bible says so. Blah blah blah.
Submitted by Constitution (user info) at 2007-07-24 21:22:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And another thing. If you're such a pious Christian, why does nearly everything you post contain such venom and hatred towards...just about anyone there is to hate? Either this post is meaningless hit-whoring (I'd say you were successful), or you're just a meaningless hypocrite.
Submitted by jojojojoan (user info) at 2007-07-24 20:58:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
My point of view...
God(supposedly) = Perfection
Man = Not perfect
Man wrote the bible.
So how can we take it all as truth. Especially when it contradicts itself (several times).
I believe in life after death. I believe we all have a purpose and a soul. But I don't think that any one religion in particular has hit the nail on the head. I guess we will all find out one day it's just a matter of time. So why argue over something that is in my opinion, just individual opinions?
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-07-24 19:31:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Didn't read it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-24 19:18:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:37:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
practically empty? there are over 6 million palestinian refugees. 6 million people displaced from a land that was practically empty. when israel was created it gave 80% of the land to 20% of the people.
if jews were so presecuted in arab lands, why were they allowed to buy land? and although they were allowed to buy land, there's now way they could have bought a whole country worth of land
-------------------------------
6 million?
The UN estimate put it at 711,500 in 1951. Where do you get 6 million from? That is an astounding birth rate for a group undergoing "genocide".
Jews were able to buy so much land there because there were always sizeable groups in places like Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed, and tiberias that was easy to gradually add to. There was no central "palestenian" govt at that time that would encourage or allow anti-semetism to cover up their shortcomings (the british mandat actually limited the amount of land jews could buy after 1939) and prior to 1930 that are was pretty "pro-jew". There were also places like the Jerzeel valley that was owned by muslims that lived far away (jordan or lebannon in this case) and didn't care who bought it as long as they paid a lot.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2007-07-24 19:13:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't care, fuck your false god- rah rah rah, we're going to smash the oiks etc.
Submitted by SgtHartman (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Man wrote what man thought was important.
=================
So by that theory the people who live their lives based on this book now are attempting to live by the morals and values of a people who lived thousands of years ago. I would actually RESPECT if people followed it that closely. Unfortunately where christianity loses most people is in the translation. I find it so amazing that every faction of christianity can find passages and parables in the bible that concur with what they believe to be true, and thereby hold true as the basis for their beliefs. I just don't see how a God that was all powerful, all knowing, infallable and everlasting would have the words that he spoke be left to interpretation. If the meaning of the bible is to instruct his creations (meaning humans) on how they should live then Heres an idea, write one simple text so that all the peoples that you mean to run will be able to understand that and choose to live by those guidelines or not. DONT LEAVE IT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. If any faction of christianity can open the book and make it their own to fit their beliefs, the book loses its credibility right there. Anything that is built in such a vague way should not be the guideline by which you live your life.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:38:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What the fuck is wrong with you man, are you retarded? None of that shit proves fucking anything.
And 9/11 and the holocaust aren't even close to the same thing. That's probably the worst part of your piece of shit post. 9/11 wasn't even a tragedy compared to what happens in the world on a daily basis. The holocaust isn't even as bad as what's been happening in Africa over time. But 9/11? What does that prove, that America threw shit at the fan and some of it sprayed right back in their mouth?
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:37:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:03:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-07-24 16:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
israel was created when 2 zionist had an idea to create a homeland and sold the idea to the british who were all too ready to offload the guilt of the persecution of jews in europe. if the jews were being persecuted in europe why not set up a homeland for them in europe? why in palestine?
i am not even talking about the jewish exodus. this post and i am talking about the creation of israel.
-------------------------
You don't see how the Jewish exodus and the creation of Israel are linked?
And Israel wasn't the idea of two people. Jews had been fleeing persecution from all over Europe, especially eastern Europs since the early 1800's. Due to immigration restrictions in America and the rest of Europe, and due to cheap land in what is now Israel they went there. They didn't go to palestine because there was no palestine when they went to the middle east.
Read a fucking history book. Israel didn't pop up over night after WWII. It wasn't a whim of two people who felt guilty over the holocaust (I don't even know who those two people could be). Jews had been moving there for over a hundred years before WWII (a small group had lived there continously for thousands) and lived peacfully with their muslim neighbors until they were attacked. They didn't take over palestine because there was no palestine. Look at the riots that occurred before Israel declared independence. Look at what govt was there before they declared independence.
They wouldn't set up a state in Europe because there was no land, whereas the middle east was practically empty in comparison. You make it out like palestine was a real country then jews moved and started booting people out. The fact is they had been buying land and immagrating for generations before WWII, before palestine existed. They weren't kicking people out of their homes and most of their settlemnts were on land nobody lived on. Do you know what a kibbutz is? Thye went to land that people had written off as to hard to farm and left barren and made it arable. They breathed life back into that sandy piece of shit and when the arabs saw what they had done they wanted the land back.
---------------------
practically empty? there are over 6 million palestinian refugees. 6 million people displaced from a land that was practically empty. when israel was created it gave 80% of the land to 20% of the people.
if jews were so presecuted in arab lands, why were they allowed to buy land? and although they were allowed to buy land, there's now way they could have bought a whole country worth of land
Submitted by Constitution (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:28:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Iran came after Persia was destroyed. Sure it had the same language (arabic) but that is the languge of the area. A Turk, an Egyptian, an Iraqui and an Iranian can all sit at the table and speek the very same language and understand each other perfectly. It's called Arabic. Sure some of the slang might be different but all in all it's the same language."
I'm in awe of your ignorance. Persians speak Farsi. No other group speaks it. It's its own language. Iranians are Persians. Most Iranians, whether living in Iran or whether they're expatriates, consider themselves Persian.
As for the Israeli flag, it was designed for the Zionist Movement in 1891. The Star of David wasn't mentioned in a Jewish text until the 12th century. Do some fucking research, man.
The people of Israel, and Jews in general, are mainly Ashkenazi and Sephardi. While they're obviously of Middle Eastern origin, they were living in Europe for the past 1400+ years until they migrated back to Israel/Palestine before, during and after WWII.
Israel in the Bible was closer to a confederation of various Jewish states. It also was much larger than the current state of Israel, so it seems odd that if Israel was 'supposed to come back,' it would be 1/4 the size it once was.
Submitted by Cyrus (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
the usual heat-seeking horseshit
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:11:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Boon (user info) at 2007-07-24 17:52:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.
--Sam Harris
--------------------
Because the bible was sritten by man and man at that time wouldn't have understood electricity, DNA etc. Most of the verses in the bible are actually what about what man did, not direct word of god. Man wrote what man thought was important.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:03:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-07-24 16:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
israel was created when 2 zionist had an idea to create a homeland and sold the idea to the british who were all too ready to offload the guilt of the persecution of jews in europe. if the jews were being persecuted in europe why not set up a homeland for them in europe? why in palestine?
i am not even talking about the jewish exodus. this post and i am talking about the creation of israel.
-------------------------
You don't see how the Jewish exodus and the creation of Israel are linked?
And Israel wasn't the idea of two people. Jews had been fleeing persecution from all over Europe, especially eastern Europs since the early 1800's. Due to immigration restrictions in America and the rest of Europe, and due to cheap land in what is now Israel they went there. They didn't go to palestine because there was no palestine when they went to the middle east.
Read a fucking history book. Israel didn't pop up over night after WWII. It wasn't a whim of two people who felt guilty over the holocaust (I don't even know who those two people could be). Jews had been moving there for over a hundred years before WWII (a small group had lived there continously for thousands) and lived peacfully with their muslim neighbors until they were attacked. They didn't take over palestine because there was no palestine. Look at the riots that occurred before Israel declared independence. Look at what govt was there before they declared independence.
They wouldn't set up a state in Europe because there was no land, whereas the middle east was practically empty in comparison. You make it out like palestine was a real country then jews moved and started booting people out. The fact is they had been buying land and immagrating for generations before WWII, before palestine existed. They weren't kicking people out of their homes and most of their settlemnts were on land nobody lived on. Do you know what a kibbutz is? Thye went to land that people had written off as to hard to farm and left barren and made it arable. They breathed life back into that sandy piece of shit and when the arabs saw what they had done they wanted the land back.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-07-24 18:01:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by Boon (user info) at 2007-07-24 17:52:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Christians regularly assert that the Bible predicts future historical events. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." Jesus says, in Luke 19:43-44, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation. It is on the basis of such reasoning that 44 percent of the American population now believes that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.
But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.
Take a moment to imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen. Instead, the Bible contains some very obvious mathematical errors. In two places, for instance, the Good Book gives the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter as simply 3 (1 Kings 7: 23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2-5). We now refer to this constant relation with the Greek letter p. While the decimal expansion of p runs to infinity-3.1415926535 . . .-we can calculate it to any degree of accuracy we like. Centuries before the oldest books of the Bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated p to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible-whether inerrant or divinely inspired-offers us an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Needless to say, many religious people have found ingenious ways of rationalizing this. And yet, these rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight. It is absolutely true to say that, if Archimedes had written a chapter of the Bible, the text would bear much greater evidence of the author's "omniscience."
Why doesn't the Bible say anything about electricity, about DNA, or about the actual age and size of the universe? What about a cure for cancer? Millions of people are dying horribly from cancer at this very moment, many of them children. When we fully understand the biology of cancer, this understanding will surely be reducible to a few pages of text. Why aren't these pages, or anything remotely like them, found in the Bible? The Bible is a very big book. There was room for God to instruct us on how to keep slaves and sacrifice a wide variety of animals. Please appreciate how this looks to one who stands outside the Christian faith. It is genuinely amazing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.
--Sam Harris
---
Excellent argument. Well done Boon.
You should start posting - I know I would be very interested in reading more about whatever it was you had to say.
Submitted by Zampano (user info) at 2007-07-24 17:58:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd trust in the Bible if it would just give us a clear date--an honest-to-God year, not a vague prediction--as to when Dan Brown will lead us all to Heav'n.
Submitted by Boon (user info) at 2007-07-24 17:52:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Christians regularly assert that the Bible predicts future historical events. For instance, Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "The Lord will scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other." Jesus says, in Luke 19:43-44, "The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you." We are meant to believe that these utterances predict the subsequent history of the Jews with such uncanny specificity so as to admit of only a supernatural explanation. It is on the basis of such reasoning that 44 percent of the American population now believes that Jesus will return to earth to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years.
But just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy could be if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make specific, falsifiable predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage like, "In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers-the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus-and this system shall be called the Internet." The Bible contains nothing remotely like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century.
Take a moment to imagine how good a book could be if it were written by the Creator of the universe. Such a book could contain a chapter on mathematics that, after two thousand years of continuous use, would still be the richest source of mathematical insight the earth has ever seen. Instead, the Bible contains some very obvious mathematical errors. In two places, for instance, the Good Book gives the ratio of a circumference of a circle to its diameter as simply 3 (1 Kings 7: 23-26 and 2 Chronicles 4: 2-5). We now refer to this constant relation with the Greek letter p. While the decimal expansion of p runs to infinity-3.1415926535 . . .-we can calculate it to any degree of accuracy we like. Centuries before the oldest books of the Bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated p to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible-whether inerrant or divinely inspired-offers us an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world. Needless to say, many religious people have found ingenious ways of rationalizing this. And yet, these rationalizations cannot conceal the obvious deficiency of the Bible as a source of mathematical insight. It is absolutely true to say that, if Archimedes had written a chapter of the Bible, the text would bear much greater evidence of the author's "omniscience."
Why doesn't the Bible say anything about el